HE Decision Variance -- WTP Carbon Recovery ProjectI
2
'1jC. 109V
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RECEIVED
Aug 03 2021
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY OF E D M O N D S DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY
OF EDMONDS
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Wastewater Treatment Plant
Carbon Recovery Project
Carbon Filter Setback Variance
(PLN20210028)
Loading Dock Setback Variance
(PLN20210029)
Design Review (PLN20210030)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The City of Edmonds requests approval of two variances and design review to install a
carbon filter and construct a loading dock within the 20-foot setback to SR 104 for the
City's wastewater treatment plant located at 200 2nd Avenue. The carbon filter is
proposed to be five feet from the property line and the loading dock one foot from the
property line. The two variances and design review are approved subject to conditions.
TESTIMONY
Testimony was limited to Kernen Lien, Senior Planner, and Phil Williams, Edmonds
Public Works. No members of the public attended the hearing. The hearing was about
40 minutes long and mostly focused upon Mr. Lien's overview of the project and
extensive questioning from the Examiner. Pertinent comments made by Mr. Lien and
Mr. Williams are integrated into the findings of fact below.
Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Staff Report dated January 26, 2020 w/4 attachments (listed on page 2
of the Staff Report)
Exhibit 2 Staff PowerPoint slides
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The City of Edmonds.
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing on the subject application was held on August
2, 2021 at 3:00 pm via Zoom, Meeting ID No. 954 4396 1977.
Substantive:
3. Site and Proposal Description. The City of Edmonds requests approval of two
variances and design review approval to install a carbon filter and construct a loading
dock within the 20-foot setback to SR 104 for the City's wastewater treatment plant
located at 200 2nd Avenue. The carbon filter is proposed to be 5 feet from the property
line and the loading dock one foot from the property line. The 20-foot setback is
imposed by ECDC 16.80.030A, which imposes a 20-foot setback from all property
lines for structures located in the P zone and a 25-foot setback if the adjoining zoning
is residential.
The existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) building is located approximately
7.5 feet from the western property line along SR 104. The proposal would place the
carbon filter on top of an existing catwalk on the west side of the building (Exhibit 1,
Attachment 3). The proposal will provide landscaping within the setback that will
extend into the SR104 right-of-way.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The WWTP is bounded by SR104 to the west, Dayton
Street to the north and 2nd Avenue South to the east. The Harbor Square commercial
center is located across SR104 to the west and Salish Crossing commercial
development kitty corner to the NW. A senior living facility is located north across
Dayton Street and some multi -family residential development is located across 2nd
Avenue South. The old Public Works building is also located directly east of the
WWTP site.
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. The proposed variances will not create any
significant adverse impacts to the environment or surrounding properties. Impacts are
more specifically addressed below:
Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Critical Areas. The proposal will not adversely affect critical areas. The
temporary and permanent loading docks will be located in a Class I wetland buffer
and the temporary loading dock will likely be located in a floodplain. Impacts are
specifically addressed as follows:
1. Wetland. A wetland just south of the WWTP was identified as a
Category I wetland according to the critical area report provided in
Exhibit 1, Attachment 7. Pursuant to ECDC 23.50.040.F.e, Category 1
wetlands with a habitat score of 7 require a 110-foot buffer.
Additionally, ECDC 23.40.080 requires an additional 15-foot building
setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The carbon filter will be
located outside of the wetland buffer and building setback, but the
proposed loading dock will be located within the 110-foot buffer.
Staff have determined that as mitigated, the proposal complies with the
City's critical area regulations. ECDC 23.50.040.I allows for additions
to structures existing within wetland and/or wetland buffers. ECDC
23.50.040.I1d authorizes expansion of nonconforming uses of up to 300
square feet within the inner 50% buffer if located outside the inner 25%
buffer and the encroachment is mitigated with enhancement at a 3:1
ratio. The temporary and permanent loading docks have a combined
area of 300 square feet. Wetland enhancement is proposed at 4.2:1. The
critical areas report for the project concludes that as mitigated the
proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function. See Ex. 1, att.
7, p. 7-1.
2. Floodplain. FEMA mapping identifies a 100-year floodplain at the
project site. The only proposed improvement that will be located within
the floodplain will be the temporary loading dock. A condition of
approval requires the Applicant to provide information on the precise
location of the loading dock in relation to the floodplain to ensure that
floodplain requirements are fully met. In response to examiner
questions, Mr. Lien confirmed that there would not be any required
floodplain mitigation during building permit review that would affect
the proposed project design.
B. Compatibility. The proposed additions are fully compatible with surrounding uses.
The two improvements are not adjacent to any sensitive land uses, as they are next
to SR 104 across from commercial and open space areas. As identified in the staff
report, other than the setback subject to the variance requests, the proposal is
consistent with the bulk and dimensional standards of the P zoning district and is
therefore presumptively compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed
improvements will be located more than very roughly at least twenty feet from the
travelled portion of the SR 104 highway and extensive landscaping will shield most
of the improvements from view. The proposed carbon filter will be located above
an existing concrete catwalk with only a very minor overhang to the west, thus the
Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
increase in bulk and scale of the WWTP caused by the additions will not be
significant overall. Mr. Williams testified that no noise impacts are associated with
the carbon filter and there are no sensitive land uses close to the filter that would
likely be affected by a moderate amount of noise.
6. Necessity of Variances. The variances are necessary due to unique circumstances
related to the project site because there is nowhere else to place the loading dock and
carbon filter that would meet setback requirements. As shown in the aerial photograph
in Figure 2 of Att. 7, the project site is fully developed except for small patches of open
space on three corners of the project site. As testified by Mr. Williams, the proposed
location for the improvement is the best suited for the functionality of the project. As
further testified by Mr. Williams, the carbon filter cannot be placed upon the roof of the
existing buildings because of height restrictions and functional weight limitations. The
location of the proposed loading dock is necessary for installation of equipment
associated with the carbon filter and other upgrades to the treatment facility. Once
construction is completed, a permanent loading dock is necessary for the removal of
extracted carbon and replacement of carbon filter equipment.
In addition to there being no feasible alternative locations for the improvements, the
improvements also serve a public necessity. The facility serves as a wastewater
treatment plant for Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Woodway, Shoreline and
the Olympic View Water and Sewer District. As testified by Mr. Williams and noted
in the staff report, the proposed improvements serve the City's comprehensive plan
sustainability goals by enabling a significant reduction in the production of greenhouse
gases while also reducing the energy consumption of the facility.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. Variance applications are classified as Type III-B
decisions and design review as Type III -A decisions under ECDC 20.01.003. The two
variance and design review applications have been consolidated to Type III-B review
pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.13. ECDC 20.01.00313 provides that the hearing examiner
holds a hearing and issues a final decision on Type III-B decisions.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designations. The project is zoned Public (P).
3. Permit Review Criteria/Design Review Approval. Variance criteria are
governed by ECDC 20.85.010. All applicable criteria are quoted in italics below and
applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Design review criteria are governed by Chapter 20.11 ECDC. The proposal complies
with all pertinent design review standards as identified in the findings and conclusions
of the design review staff report, Att. 1, adopted by this reference.
ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section
can be made.
ECDC 20.85.010.A(1) — Special Circumstances: That, because of special
circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance
would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in
the vicinity with the same zoning.
a. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and
uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as
vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats.
b. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to
the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary
to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the
ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting
from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property;
4. The criterion is met. The proposed improvements serve a public necessity and must
be placed at the proposed locations for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
ECDC 20.85.010(B) — Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not
be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
5. The criterion is met. The setback variances do not constitute a special privilege, as
they are necessary to serve the sustainability goals of the City in providing wastewater
treatment services to the public. The necessity for the proposal is well justified and any
other public project under similar circumstances would also be approved.
ECDC 20.85.010(C) — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will
be consistent with the comprehensive plan;
6. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan
because it furthers the sustainability and energy efficiency objectives of Comprehensive
Plan Sustainability Goal D while also not creating any significant adverse impacts as
concluded in Finding of Fact No. 5.
ECDC 20.85.010(D) — Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be
consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the
property is located;
Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the P
zone. ECDC 16.80.000 provides in relevant part that the purpose of the P zone is to
assure continuing availability of public lands for public use. The proposed
improvements provide for a significant environmental and energy conservation upgrade
to the treatment plant without consuming a significant amount of publicly available
land. In this regard the proposal succeeds in focusing upon public use of public lands.
ECDC 16.80.000 identifies another purpose of the P zone as establishing standards to
minimize impacts on nearby properties. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5, the
proposed improvements are consistent with this objective since they will not create any
significant impacts to adjoining properties.
ECDC 20.85.010(E) — Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or
conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone;
8. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal
will not create any significant adverse impacts and thus will not be significantly
detrimental to public health, safety and welfare or injurious to surrounding properties.
ECDC 20.85.010(F) — Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the
minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
9. The criterion is met. As testified by Mr. Williams and outlined in Finding of Fact
No. 6, the proposed improvements could not be located anywhere else at the project site
given the extent of development and the need to have the filter close to the equipment
to which it is associated. Further, as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the filter will be
placed upon an existing concrete catwalk with minimal overhang, thereby minimizing
the increase in bulk and scale of the WWTP.
DECISION
The two variance requests and design review are approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The wetland enhancement plan in Exhibit 1, Attachment 7 and Planting Plan
in Exhibit 1, Attachment 5 must be implemented.
2. In order to demonstrate whether the structure is within the flood plain, the
building official requests the following information be submitted with the
building permit submittal for the loading dock:
Variance
a. Provide an enhanced Site Plan, prepared and sealed by a licensed
surveyor, showing
i. The distance between the building and the western property line,
ii. The outline of the proposed loading dock,
p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
iii. Footing locations for the loading dock,
iv. Flood zone boundary.
b. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment
(LOMA) may assist in the determination of the location of the
structure in relation to the flood zone. If you so choose, these
documents may be obtained from FEMA through the agency's web
site.
Dated this 2nd day of August 2021.
Ph —if A.Olbrechts
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This land use decision is final and subject to appeal to superior court as governed by
the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision